DOCSLIB.ORG

Just War to Just Peace: Jus Post Bellum for a Lasting Peace

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Just War to Just Peace: Jus Post Bellum for a Lasting Peace Just War To Just Peace: Jus Post Bellum For A Lasting Peace Final Thesis Submission by Mansi Rathour (S2074990) Course: MA Philosophy, Politics and Economics Supervisor: Dr. E.R. Boot, Postdoc, Institute of Philosophy Date: June 14, 2018 Table of Contents Abstract Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 1 1. Perspectives on the Just War Theory...............................................................................4 1.1 Jus ad bellum and Jus in bello .................................................................................................. 5 1.2 Traditionalists versus Revisionists ............................................................................................. 7 2. Nature of Peace ...............................................................................................................16 2.1 Transition from Negative to Positive Peace ............................................................................. 18 2.2 Kantian Peace Triangle ............................................................................................................ 22 2.2.1 Republican Constitution .......................................................................................... 23 2.2.2 Economic Interdependence ...................................................................................... 25 2.2.3 International Organizations ...................................................................................... 27 2.3 Summary .................................................................................................................................. 28 3. Jus Post Bellum: Justice After War ................................................................................30 3.1 The Debate between Minimalists and Maximalists ................................................................. 31 3.1.1 Principles of Maximalist Just Post Bellum .............................................................. 35 3.2 The Case for a Maximalist Jus Post Bellum ............................................................................ 38 3.2.1 Current Political Reality .......................................................................................... 40 3.2.2 Limitations of the Minimalist account ..................................................................... 41 3.3 Challenges ................................................................................................................................ 43 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................45 Bibliography .................................................................................................................................47 Just War To Just Peace: Jus Post Bellum For A Lasting Peace Mansi Rathour ABSTRACT As the menace of international terror grows, just war theory has been a key topic of speculation in politics, international relations as well as philosophy. While the theory has been framed by the debate between “traditionalists” and “revisionists”, recent discussions seem to have a concern over the integration of jus post bellum. As a result, there has been a neglect towards this necessary third branch of the just war theory. The objective and the desired outcome of just wars is peace. But the lack of established laws for war termination has led to much vagueness and disagreements upon the content of jus post bellum. Consequently, it leads to messy and unrestrained war endings and mere ad-hoc solutions. By bringing together contemporary political philosophers addressing the normative issues concerning war, the work here aims to defend an extensive and maximalist account of jus post bellum thereby contributing to its development. INTRODUCTION The firmest security of peace is the preparation during peace of the defenses of war. -John Quincy Adams There has been a sudden interest in the ethics of war and peace propelled by the aftermath in Kosovo and Iraq. Such disastrous impacts demonstrate the importance and complexities involved with post war peace building. And while efforts are being taken to remedy the situations, there have been instances where the post-war actions don’t live up to the standard that contemporary times demand.1 Most wars today don’t necessarily have a clear beginning or an end, meaning that “wars can drag on for a long time.”2 The blurring of lines between war and peace as well as the changing political landscape poses a serious challenges to the just war theory in terms of its applicability. War has three major strands, viz. pacifism, realism and the just war theory. Pacifism is the theory that categorically prohibits war. It holds that war and all forms of violence, regardless of the reason is unjustifiable. Then how is it that conflicts should be resolves? Under such an understanding all conflicts can be settled by means that don’t necessarily involve violence like, through arbitration or dialogues and discourses. The realist position on the other hand claims for the non-morality of war as it is beneficial to the national interest. Pacifists and the realists take the two extreme positions against each other and the just war theory which attempts to restrict war and warfare, takes a sensible middle position between political realism and pacifist idealism. The just war theory is a body of norms that regulates the different phases of war. It justifies wars under extreme circumstances and only to bring about a state of just and long- lasting peace. As has been said by Steven Lee: “In its most general form, the basic moral issue lying behind just war theory is: what is a state permitted to do through the use of military force to those outside its borders?”3 1 The Iraq Inquiry Report, 2016, p.122 finds that the UK preparation for post-war Iraq were “wholly inadequate”. 2 Herfried Münkler, 2005, The New Wars p. 19-20. 3 Steven Lee, ‘Ethics and War. An Introduction’, 2012, p. 290. 1 A war has three phases-beginning, the situation prior to war where the participation in war is considered, the middle, situation while and during a war, and an end, situation identified by absence of violence which is immediate to the termination of war. We thus need rules in connection with all three respectively. Having norms for the first two phases while overlooking the third phase is not justified making the just war theory inadequate. The just war theory has carved out the provisions for the beginning (jus ad bellum) and middle (jus in bello) phases of war, but now we are faced with the question whether the just war theory is relevant for the current political climate.4 If we are to be consistent, then we need to consider the end (jus post bellum) of a conflict. It is the best way to transition from a state of violence into a state of lasting and durable peace. This historical just war theory has been revived in the contemporary times by Michael Walzer’s influential work Just and Unjust Wars in 1977. The thesis I want to defend is that the current scope of the just war doctrine with its meagre and limited notion of jus post bellum is insufficient to justify wars especially in recent times. While the just war theory may have leading position on the morality of war where its criteria appeals to the moral intuitions held by many people, it isn’t without limitations nonetheless. It is struggling to keep up with the changing international reality in light of asymmetrical contemporary wars. As we progress, I will show that with changing times, when means of war and warfare have changed, it calls for greater development of the third branch of the theory, viz. the jus post bellum. There should be a comprehensive plan for justice after war that aims for the initial objective of peace but one that also does not neglect any wrongdoings. Taking a maximalist position on the jus post bellum, the post-war responsibilities are more positive looking and shared by responsible duty bearers, aimed at a peaceful state based on mutual trust and cooperation. In order to demonstrate why and how a such a notion of jus post bellum necessarily leads to peace, I will draw an analysis on the Kantian Peace. Kant reflected extensively on post-war phase and what might be needed to secure a long-term peace between nations. There needs to be moral and legal completion of the post-war phase, for a failure to construct the principles of jus 4 C. A. J. Coady, 2008, Morality and Political Violence, argues for the claim that the just war theory provides a systematic framework for the ethical analysis of contemporary war. 2 post bellum allow unconstrained war termination. Can all the actions and rights violations observed during a war be warranted by just the norms governing the conduct in wartime? Who is to share the responsibilities for the ill-effects of war and work towards the better peaceful future of a defeated state where the members have nothing left to contribute due to war? To resolve the above-mentioned challenges, the Just War Theory must integrate a comprehensive account of its third branch, viz. jus post bellum or justice after war. This third branch is a necessary approach to provide the moral guidance for the realization of just peace. Jus Post Bellum looks into some of the deepest and interesting issues in contemporary political theory which is why its norms involve a broad set of affirmative duties. Such a conception of
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Jus Post Bellum
    The Unjustness of the Current Incantation of Jus Post Bellum by Dan G. Cox us post bellum was originally conceived as an extension of modern just war theory. Specifically, it was aimed at examining the justness and morality of actions during war, jus in bello, in relationship to negotiations for peace in the post-war setting. Under the initial conception of Jjus post bellum, considerations of distinction of enemies from civilians, for example, takes on a more pointed meaning, as one has to calculate how much collateral damage is appropriate given the longer-term end-goal of successful and beneficial peace negotiations. Unfortunately, jus post bellum has recently been expanded to mean that the victor in the war is now responsible for the long-term well-being of the people it has defeated. This has led to a concerted outcry for post-war nation-building, which neither leads necessarily to successful negotiations, nor ensures a better or lasting peace. In fact, current conceptions of jus post bellum remove national interest from the equation altogether, replacing all military endeavors with one monolithic national interest—liberal imperialism.1 Further, current incantations of jus post bellum obviate the possibility of a punitive strike or punitive expedition, even though this might be exactly what is needed in certain cases to create a better peace than existed prior to conflict. This article is an exploration of the current incantation of jus post bellum. The concept of an incantation was chosen purposively, as proponents of jus post bellum are engaging in a dogmatic approach to war termination oblivious to the complexities and realities of conflict and, in fact, in violation of just war theory itself.
    [Show full text]
  • Cox, Abstract, the Injustice of the Current Incantation of Jus Post Bellum
    The Injustice of the Current Incantation of Jus Post Bellum Dan G. Cox, Ph. D., School of Advanced Military Studies, US Army, [email protected] 9137583319 Abstract: Jus post bellum was originally conceived as an extension of modern just war theory. Specifically, it was aimed at examining the justness and morality of actions during war, jus in bello, in relationship to negotiations for peace in the post-war setting. Under the initial conception of jus post bellum, considerations of distinction of enemies from civilians, for example, takes on a more pointed meaning as one has to calculate how much collateral damage, even if allowed for in just in bello, is appropriate given the longer-term end-goal of successful and beneficial peace negotiations. Unfortunately, jus post bellum has been expanded to mean that the victor in the war is now responsible for the well-being of the people and/or nation it has defeated. This has led to a concerted cry for post-war nation-building which neither leads necessarily to successful negotiations nor ensures a better or lasting peace. In fact, current conceptions of jus post bellum remove national interest from the equation altogether replacing all military endeavors with one monolithic national interest; liberal imperialism1. Further, current incantations of jus post bellum obviate the possibility of a punitive strike or punitive expedition even though this might be exactly what is needed in certain cases to create a better peace than existed prior to conflict. This paper will explore the genesis and evolution of the jus post bellum concept.
    [Show full text]
  • State Sovereignty Discourse and the Just War Tradition: Assessing Colombia’S 2008 Cross-Border Raid Into Ecuador and Its Foreign Policy Implications
    i State sovereignty discourse and the Just War Tradition: Assessing Colombia’s 2008 cross-border raid into Ecuador and its foreign policy implications Kim Refshauge Master of Arts (Research) in International Studies, School of International Studies, University of Technology Sydney 2017 ii CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINAL AUTHORSHIP This thesis is the result of a research candidature at the University of Technology, Sydney as in fulfilment of the requirements for a Master’s degree. I certify that the work in this thesis has not previously been submitted for a different degree. I also certify that the thesis has been written by me. Any help that I have received in my research work and the preparation of the thesis itself has been acknowledged. In addition, I certify that all information sources and literature used are indicated in the thesis. Signature of Student: Date: 27-July-2017 iii iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I am grateful to my supervisor, Associate Professor Jeff Browitt, for his unwavering support and dedicated supervision over the last two years. I would also like to extend my deepest gratitude to my parents for their encouragement. This thesis would not have been possible without them. v vi TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ....................................................................................... vii INTRODUCTION: ............................................................................... 1 Military interventions similar to Operation Phoenix: ........................... 2 Typology of justifications for military interventions .........................
    [Show full text]
  • Attaining Post-Conflict Peace Using the Jus Post Bellum Concept
    religions Article Attaining Post-Conflict Peace Using the jus post bellum Concept Albert W. Klein 1,2,3 1 Department of Political Science, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH 45208, USA; [email protected] 2 Fellow, The Center for Cyber Strategy and Policy, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH 45221, USA 3 Faculty Fellow, Ohio Cyber Range Institute, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH 45208, USA Received: 27 January 2020; Accepted: 1 April 2020; Published: 8 April 2020 Abstract: To attain peace after state-on-state war, there must be a belligerent occupation to establish control and security of a defeated state—but that is not enough. There is the concept of jus post bellum concerning the vanquished, which is critically necessary in practice, yet insufficiently developed and understood. Providing the history and tentatively trying to determine the elements that are contained in this concept are the present article’s purpose. Tracing the concept from the earliest Christian writers to the more secular present-day authors will aid in the prospective application of jus post bellum. Scholars, military officers, statesmen, religious leaders, and humanitarians need to understand and accept the basic elements of the concept. A clear understanding of the largely religious history behind these elements should assist in their acceptance and future practical application, once these are agreed upon. Keywords: Just war; jus post bellum; Laws of War; Laws of Peace; Just War Theory 1. Introduction In my view, attaining a just peace after state-on-state wars requires a belligerent occupation and the application of the concept of jus post bellum.
    [Show full text]
  • Waging War: Filling the Gap in Just War Theory
    Waging War: Filling the Gap in Just War Theory by James M. Dubik Lieutenant General, U.S. Army, Retired A dissertation submitted to Johns Hopkins University in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Baltimore, Maryland June 18, 2014 © 2014 James M. Dubik All Rights Reserved Abstract 1. Statement of the Problem. Just war theory’s account of jus in bello is deficient. Michael Walzer, the prime representative of the prevailing view in the United States, restricts jus in bello to combat, war-fighting, then constructs a theory of responsibility and presents a set of principles that guide action when fighting: the principles of combatant/noncombatant distinction, proportionality, double effect and double intent, as well as the principle of due care/due risk—all of which arise amid the tension between winning and fighting well. 2. Procedures and methods. This study establishes and describes the gap in the prevailing view’s treatment of jus in bello, then investigates alternative ways to fill that gap. Throughout, the study combines elements of moral philosophy, political philosophy, and strategic studies with historical and contemporary case illustrations of war. 3. Results. This study finds that the prevailing view is necessary but insufficient; it omits jus in bello’s strategic, war-waging dimension which involves a tri-partite tension: (a) setting war aims and making strategy, policy, and campaign decisions that increase the probability of being right, or at least less wrong than those one is fighting; (b) translating those decisions into action to achieve war aims at the least cost, in lives and resources, and least risk to one’s political community and adapting aims, strategies, policies, and campaigns to the changing realities of war as they unfold; and (c) doing all of the foregoing while observing the war convention, sustaining the war’s legitimacy in the eyes of the political community, and maintaining proper subordination of the military to civilian ii leadership.
    [Show full text]
  • Jus Post Bellum Proportionality and the Fog of War
    The European Journal of International Law Vol. 24 no. 1 © The Author, 2013. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of EJIL Ltd. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: [email protected] Jus Post Bellum Proportionality and the Fog of War Larry May* Downloaded from Abstract http://ejil.oxfordjournals.org/ This article begins by briefly discussing the general idea of jus post bellum norms before turning to discuss some of Michael Walzer’s ideas about jus post bellum, particularly what he says, or could be construed to infer, about post-war proportionality. It also re-examines Walzer’s discussion of the problems of post-war retribution and reconciliation. The article seeks to formulate and defend a post-war principle of proportionality, discussing how it relates to other proportionality principles, as well as to other jus post bellum principles. This leads to an examination of the fog of war, especially concerning Robert McNamara’s at New York University School of Law on April 30, 2013 calculations about the application of the principle of proportionality to the firebombing of Tokyo. I outline a general account of contingent pacifism that seems to me to follow from careful consideration of the jus post bellum principle of proportionality. The article closes by initiating a discussion of the prospects for the end of war in light of considerations about the justice of how particular wars should end. For the last 2,000 years, a philosophical and theological tradition has dominated dis- cussions about war, the Just War tradition. Augustine of Hippo is often credited with starting that tradition as he argued against the early Church Fathers who were largely pacifists.
    [Show full text]
  • Controlling Cyberwarfare International Laws of Armed Conflict and Human Rights in the Cyber Realm
    Controlling Cyberwarfare International Laws of Armed Conflict and Human Rights in the Cyber Realm by William James Jordan A thesis presented to the University of Waterloo in fulfillment of the thesis requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Philosophy Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, 2021 © William James Jordan 2021 Examining Committee Membership The following served on the Examining Committee for this thesis. Thedeci­ sion of the Examining Committee is by majority vote. External Examiner: Col. David Barnes Professor, Department of English and Philosophy United States Military Academy Supervisor: W. Mathieu Doucet Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy University of Waterloo Internal Member: Brian D. Orend Professor, Department of Philosophy University of Waterloo Internal Member: Patricia A. Marino Professor, Department of Philosophy University of Waterloo Internal­External Member: Veronica M. Kitchen Associate Professor, Department of Political Science University of Waterloo ii Author’s Declaration I hereby declare that I am the sole author of this thesis. This is a true copy of the thesis, including any required final revisions, as accepted by my ex­ aminers. I understand that my thesis may be made electronically available to the pub­ lic. iii Abstract Cyberwarfare, military activities in cyberspace conducted by a state against another state and intended to disrupt or destroy computing or communica­ tion systems or data, is a recent addition to the warfaring arsenal. The in­ ternational laws of armed conflict set out an obligation for states at warto protect civilians from the effects of the conflict. As societies continue toex­ pand their activities in the cyber realm, the risk of cyberwarfare negatively affecting the civilian population increases.
    [Show full text]
  • Jus Ad Bellum’, ‘Jus in Bello’
    The European Journal of International Law Vol. 17 no.5 © EJIL 2007; all rights reserved ........................................................................................... ‘Jus ad bellum’, ‘jus in bello’ . ‘jus post bellum’? – Rethinking the Conception of the Law of Armed Force Carsten Stahn* Abstract The law of armed force is traditionally conceptualized in the categories of jus ad bellum and jus in bello. This dualist conception of armed force has its origin in the legal tradition of the inter-war period. This essay revisits this approach. It argues that the increasing interweaving of the concepts of intervention, armed conflict and peace-making in contemporary practice make it necessary to complement the classical rules of jus ad bellum and in jus in bello with a third branch of the law, namely rules and principles governing peace-making after conflict. The idea of a tripartite conception of armed force, including the concept of justice after war (‘jus post bellum’) has a long-established tradition in moral philosophy and legal theory. This article argues that this historical concept deserves fresh attention from a legal perspective at a time when the contemporary rules of jus ad bellum and jus in bello are increasingly shaped by a normative conception of law and justice and a broadening notion of human security. Moreover, it identifies some of the legal rules and principles underlying a modern conception of ‘just post bellum’. 1 Introduction Since Grotius’ De Jure Belli ac Pacis, the architecture of the international legal sys- tem has been founded upon a distinction between the states of war and peace. At the beginning of the 20th century, it was taken for granted that ‘the law recog- nizes a state of peace and a state of war, but that it knows nothing of an intermediate * Dr.jur., LL.M.
    [Show full text]
  • Thesis Abstract
    HUMANITARIAN WAR IN THEORY AND PRACTICE: A CASE STUDY OF THE NATO INTERVENTION IN KOSOVO Owen Michael Godfrey, MA Thesis submitted to the University of Nottingham for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy May 2007 Thesis Abstract TITLE: Humanitarian War in Theory and Practice: A Case Study of the NATO Intervention in Kosovo This thesis aims to test and refine the theory of humanitarian war through the medium of a case study of the NATO intervention in Kosovo in 1999. Key research questions include: Is ‘humanitarian war’ a contradiction in terms? To what extent can military force be an appropriate and effective instrument for solving or averting humanitarian crises and ensuring respect for human rights? Is the concept, as some critics argue, too easily abused by powerful states seeking to justify wars fought for self-interested reasons? The thesis will look at the arguments of both proponents and critics of the concept of humanitarian war. The aim is to provide an immanent critique of the theory, judging it on its own terms; therefore when the arguments of critics are considered, the main emphasis will be on critics who come from within the liberal spectrum, rather than on realists or communitarians. It will examine the theory in terms of its three aspects- the jus ad bellum, jus in bello and jus post bellum- with the aim of taking a ‘longer view’ of intervention than is often the case in the existing literature, viewing it not as a discrete event but as part of a complex long- term process. The case of Kosovo was chosen as a recent intervention that has often been cited as a good example of a humanitarian war, and one which most proponents of the concept supported, at least in principle.
    [Show full text]
  • Jus Post Bellum and Global Responsibility for Peace
    Pro-Fil 21 (2) 2020: 18–29 https://doi.org/10.5817/pf20-2-2127 JUS POST BELLUM AND GLOBAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR PEACE LUKÁŠ ŠVAŇA Institute of Ethics and Bioethics, Faculty of Arts, University of Prešov, Slovakia [email protected] RESEARCH PAPER ▪ SUBMITTED: 3/6/2020 ▪ ACCEPTED: 14/10/2020 Abstract: The article deals with the newly discussed set of principles that focus on various issues concerning the end of a war and the establishment of peaceful conditions for the society after a war ends. It also reveals some drawbacks of the jus post bellum principles and searches for its possible modifications into a more complex and applicable set of rules that should govern any post-war activities on both sides of the conflict. The aim is to reach its plausibility in a dynamic global society and thus argue that global peace is an attainable goal only when it becomes the goal of the global community. Keywords: war; just war; jus post bellum; global peace Post-war considerations in the just war theory This introductory section deals with one major philosophical-ethical tradition concentrated around problems of conduct of a war and its possible justification. Wars have been present in our history since the beginning of societal life of man and have been fought mainly for resources, land and power. Politicians, philosophers and other scholars began to think about rules that will limit violence in warfare and thus making it more considerate towards ordinary people's lives and their suffering. As more societies and nations have been established, warfare has become a more complicated issue.
    [Show full text]
  • “Gaps” by Countering Hybrid Warfare – Building Resilience in Jus Ante Bellum
    LEGAL CHALLENGES OR “GAPS” BY COUNTERING HYBRID WARFARE – BUILDING RESILIENCE IN JUS ANTE BELLUM Morten M. Fogt* Abstract This article is based on practical legal experience with the concept of “hybrid war.” It addresses this much discussed concept, the specific treaty limitations and the currently adopted hybrid countermeasures and then goes into a detailed legal analysis of the challenges and “gaps” that emerge. Both the traditional gray zones of the jus ad bellum and jus in bello are investigated from a hybrid war perspective as well as the specific legal challenges of confronting and countering a hybrid threat or warfare in peace time and crisis. A legal tetrachotomy is proposed consisting of the jus ante bellum, the traditional divide of the jus ad bellum and jus in bello and, moreover, the jus post bellum. It is suggested that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) build more robust legal resilience in the jus ante bellum, that legal research in this area is prioritized, that NATO look at drafting model SOFAs and reforming the old NATO SOFA of 1951 and thereby take the new peacetime and crisis hybrid challenges into account, as this would reduce the need for and complexity of different multiple bilateral SOFAs, and that NATO instigates legal research aiming at harmonizing and aligning the various national peacetime and crisis (emergency or martial) laws and draft * Lieutenant Colonel of the Danish Army, Chief Legal Advisor, NATO Multinational Division North (MNDN), Latvia/Denmark, Associated Professor in Civil and International Law, Aarhus University, Denmark. The author is grateful for comments on this paper by Professor Geoffrey S.
    [Show full text]
  • COMPENSATION AS the MORAL FOUNDATION of JUS POST BELLUM a Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School at the Un
    COMPENSATION AS THE MORAL FOUNDATION OF JUS POST BELLUM A Dissertation presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School at the University of Missouri, Columbia In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy by ADAM KOSZELA Dr. Peter Vallentyne, Dissertation Supervisor MAY 2015 The undersigned, appointed by the dean of the Graduate School, have examined the dissertation entitled COMPENSATION AS THE MORAL FOUNDATION OF JUS POST BELLUM presented by Adam Koszela, a candidate for the degree of doctor of philosophy, and hereby certify that, in their opinion, it is worthy of acceptance. Professor Peter Vallentyne Professor Robert N. Johnson Professor Peter Markie Professor Paul J. Litton Thank you to Anna and Zbigniew, for setting me on the right path, and to Keri, for patiently and lovingly keeping me on it. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank my advisor, Professor Peter Vallentyne, for supporting me during these last four years. Peter has given me the freedom to pursue my research interests, while making sure that I stayed focused on the task at hand. He was always ready to provide insightful comments on my research, and give advice on where to take it next, without which my work would have suffered greatly. I also want to thank the rest of my PhD committee, Professors Robert N. Johnson, Peter Markie, and Paul J. Litton, for their helpful suggestions and comments. My research has improved immensely because of them. I am also very grateful to Professor Crystal Allen Gunasekera and fellow graduate student (and budding just war theorist) Isaac Wagner for taking the time out of their busy schedules to provide much needed advice on many philosophical matters.
    [Show full text]